Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49740 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 915 of 2025 Applicant :- Anurag Lodhi Alias Anurag Rajpoot And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Ranish Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 0554 of 2020, under Sections 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Para, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.10.2020 against the applicants, who are cousins, stating that both the applicants had assaulted the complainant's head with an iron rod on 05.10.2020. On 08.10.2020, both of them had fired several shots with a weapon between 9:00 and 9:30 PM on 08.10.2020. 4. The complainant has not suffered any injury in the incident. Regarding the earlier incident, the informant had lodged an F.I.R No. 0545 of 2020 on 05.10.2025, in which the applicant has already been released on bail. 5. The Sessions Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the applicants stating that as the applicants are accused of commission of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 6. The Session Judge has referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union Of India; 2020 4 SCC 727, has distinguished its applicability on the ground that the F.I.R alleges that the accused persons had hurled casteist abuses on the informant/complainant. However, a perusal of the F.I.R belies this averment made in the order passed by the Session Court as the F.I.R does not contain any allegation of hurling casteist abuses. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R do not disclose that the alleged offence has been committed because of cast of the informant/complainant. 7. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the anticipatory bail application is maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra). 8.The learned A.G.A has opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and the charge-sheet has already been submitted. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant has lodged two F.I.R.s levelling similar allegations against the applicants and in none of the incident, the informant had suffered any injury; the applicants were granted bail in the earlier F.I.R lodged by the complainant and in the Subsequent case, the investigation already stands concluded and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants- Anurag Lodhi Alias Anurag Rajpoot and Atul Lodhi @ Atul Rajpoot before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 25.8.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench